Dismissed

M/S.Superfine Bleaching Company Ltd., v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Apr 2023CRL RC/653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged an order dismissing a complaint for cheating and cheating. The High Court found no issue as the matter involved a civil dispute over a transaction and deemed the lower court's finding that ingredients of criminal offences were absent to be well-merited.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. was dismissed at the admission stage.

M/S.Superfine Bleaching Company Ltd., Vs the… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order 11.04.2023 19.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶6

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶7

M/s.Superfine Bleaching Company Ltd., Represented by its Manager 11D, Gandhipuram Komarapalayam 638 183 ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police Komarapalayam P.S. Komarapalayam Namakkal District 2.M/s.Allkas Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Represented by its Director Pethamkotai Nagamalai Post Moolappatti Village Aravakurichi Taluk Karur 639 109.

¶10

3.Anand Director M/s.Allkas Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Pethamkotai Nagamalai Post

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

1/7

¶13

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶14

Moolappatti Village Aravakurichi Taluk Karur 639 109.

¶15

4.M.S.A.Sankaralingam C/o.Allkas Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., Pethamkotai Nagamalai Post Moolappatti Village Aravakurichi Taluk Karur 639 109.

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order dated 09.12.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam in CMP.No.797/2022 and to set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam dated 09.12.2022 passed in CMP.No.797/2022.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja (for R1) Government Advocate

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Petition has been filed to set aside the order of the learned Judicial

¶21

Magistrate, Komarapalayam dated 09.12.2022 passed in CMP.No.797/2022.

¶22

2.The Complainant preferred complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., for a direction to the first Respondent to register the complaint dated

¶23

2/7

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶26

03.02.2022, addressed to the Superintendent of Police dated 11.02.2022 and further complaint dated 14.05.2022.

¶27

3.According to the Petitioner, owing to the job work for fibre dyeing service extended to the 2 nd Respondent, an amount of Rs.38,37,972/- was due and payable by the 2 nd Respondent to the Petitioner. Despite the pendency of the Suit at the Company Law Tribunal, the Petitioner accepted the proposal of OTS offered by the 2 nd Respondent for payment of Rs.15,00,000/-, towards the payment of the due payable to the Petitioner by the 2 nd Respondent company. The OTS proposal was finalised on 20.10.2020 at the Petitioner's office. In that meeting, the 4 th Respondent also participated. After discussion, the 4 th Respondent issued a cheque bearing No.011502 dated 26.10.2020 drawn on Viswakarma Sahakara Bank Ltd., Head Office Branch, Car Street, Mangaluru 575001 for a value of Rs.15,00,000/-. After a passage of 2 days, the 3 rd Respondent, who is the Director of the Company, requested the Petitioner to withhold the cheque and not to present the cheque into the bank. Subsequently, he did not gave any date for presentation of the cheque into the bank and kept on avoiding the Petitioner's requests and only then the Petitioner realised that

¶28

3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶30

they were cheated by the 2 nd Respondent company.

¶31

4.The Petitioner sent a registered letter under acknowledgement due to the 3 rd Respondent, who is the Director of the 2 nd Respondent company and also who participated in the discussion towards the finalization of OTS, with a request to make the full payment of Rs.38,37,972/- immediately and the l etter issued by the revision petitioner was returned as refused and hence he alleged that Respondents 2 to 4 has committed fraud and cheating under Sections 34, 120-B & 420 of IPC. The said petition was not taken on file and returned, subsequently, after hearing the parties and perusal of the records, learned Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam has come to the conclusion that the allegation made in the complaint is truly civil in nature and does not constitute criminal offence and does dismiss the complaint. Hence the revision.

¶32

5.Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned

¶33

Government Advocate for R1.

¶34

6.Learned counsel for the Petitioner would draw my attention that the

¶35

4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶37

Respondent herein issued a cheque on 26.10.2020 for Rs.15,00,000/- towards one time settlement, as agreed between the parties and there is also a Momorandum of Understanding and there is pre-existing liability. Without receiving the legal notice, the Respondent Company is evading the service and hence committed cheating.

¶38

7.This Court has given its anxious consideration for the said contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Going by the averment made in the complaint, I find that there was a civil dispute between the parties for the supply of materials and there was a settlement, for which, as full and final settlement Rs.15,00,000/- was arrived and cheque was issued. When that being the case, it is always open to the Petitioner to present the cheque for realisation, no reason is ascertained as to why he has not presented the cheque.

¶39

8.Be that as it may, after going through the averments and facts of the case as disclosed in the complaint, I find that the ingredients of offence under Section 420 IPC is not made out. In the absence of any ingredients for the offence under Section 417 IPC, which is punishable under Section 420, learned

¶40

5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶42

Judicial Magistrate has rightly come to the conclusion that the matter is civil in nature. Such a finding is well considered and well merited, does not warrant any interference of this Court at the Revision stage and hence I am not inclined to entertain this Petition.

¶43

9.In fine, with the above observation this Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶44

19.04.2023

¶45

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order sai

¶46

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Komarapalayam

¶47

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶48

6/7

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶51

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,

¶52

sai

¶53

Pre-delivery Order made in

¶54

Crl.RC.No.653 of 2023

¶55

Dated: 19.04.2023

¶56

7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M/S.Superfine Bleaching Company Ltd., v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Superfine Bleaching Company Ltd., v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kannamma Vs M.L.Ravikumar

D.Sherfunnisa Begam Vs T.Karuppusamy

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Amutha

R.Ravi Vs State Rep by

Rani Vs Venkatesan

A.S.Munnavar Basha Vs M.Sudalaiyandi